CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 161Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing

Open access
Arawjo, Ian, Swoopes, Chelse, Vaithilingam, Priyan, Wattenberg, Martin, Glassman, Elena·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2309.09128arXiv 2309.09128
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2309.09128

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many users write their LLM pipelines as chains of multiple LLM calls.

    “Second, many users write their LLM pipelines as chains of multiple LLM calls [1, 11, 14, 53].”

    From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

    Section 8.1 reports that five interviewees prototyped LLM data-processing pipelines and sent many parametrized prompts. The paper also describes chaining Prompt Nodes (Section 5), but it does not establish that many users wrote pipelines as chains of multiple sequential LLM calls; sending multiple prompts is not necessarily chaining them. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Even people familiar with LLMs struggled to scale up their evaluations, appearing to over-generalize from a limited number of outputs even after an automated evaluation pipeline was setup.

    “Similarly, Arawjo et al. [1] found that even people familiar with LLMs (developers, academics in ML) struggled to scale up their evaluations, appearing to over-generalize from a limited number of outputs even after an automated evaluation pipeline was setup.”

    From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Tacit understanding of criteria could be highly subjective and contradictory across participants, like prior work has found for cross-LLM comparison.

    “Like prior work has found for cross-LLM comparison [1], this tacit understanding of criteria could be highly subjective and contradictory across participants.”

    From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Stephen Brade, Bryan Wang, Mauricio Sousa, Sageev Oore, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Promptify: Text-to-Image Generation through Interactive Prompt Explo- ration with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09337 (2023). · arXiv
  2. Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaker: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08715 (2023). · arXiv
  3. Dedre Gentner and Arthur B Markman. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist 52, 1 (1997), 45.
  4. Chip Huyen. 2022. Designing machine learning systems. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
  5. Mark Liffiton, Brad Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2023. CodeHelp: Us- ing Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06921 (2023). · arXiv
  6. Aditi Mishra, Utkarsh Soni, Anjana Arunkumar, Jinbin Huang, Bum Chul Kwon, and Chris Bryan. 2023. PromptAid: Prompt Exploration, Perturbation, Testing and Iteration using Visual Analytics for Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01964 (2023). · arXiv
  7. Wing Ng, Ava Anjom, and Joanna M Drinane. 2022. Beyond Amazon: Social Justice and Ethical Considerations for Research Compensation. Psychotherapy Bulletin (2022), 17.
  8. Fábio Perez and Ian Ribeiro. 2022. Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models. In NeurIPS ML Safety Workshop.
  9. Charvi Rastogi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Nicholas King, and Saleema Amershi. 2023. Supporting Human-AI Collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09991 (2023). · arXiv
  10. Fobo Shi, Peijun Qing, Dong Yang, Nan Wang, Youbo Lei, Haonan Lu, and Xi- aodong Lin. 2023. Prompt Space Optimizing Few-shot Reasoning Success with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03799 (2023). · arXiv
  11. Sangho Suh, Bryan Min, Srishti Palani, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Sensecape: Enabling Multilevel Exploration and Sensemaking with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11483 (2023). · arXiv
  12. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 20841-20855.
  13. Yongchao Zhou, Andrei Ioan Muresanu, Ziwen Han, Keiran Paster, Silviu Pitis, Harris Chan, and Jimmy Ba. 2022. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910 (2022). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Arawjo, I., Swoopes, C., Vaithilingam, P., Wattenberg, M., & Glassman, E.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
1-18
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2309.09128
arXiv
2309.09128
OpenAlex
W4396832834
Cited by
146
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 22
FWCI
42.15
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2107391, 2040880, 1955699)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
prompt engineering, large language models, graphical user interface, text generation evaluation, model selection, LLM auditing, open source software, user study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review